I'm an action junkie, I voted for Pulp Fiction. Is it high cinema? By no means.
It isn't?
Is it an action packed violence filled movie? Yes.
Since when has violence been a sign of low cinema? It's more graphic than most, but Tarantino is part of the latter age of filmmakers, and he doesn't feel the need to make horrible acts look less than they are. Not to blame earlier filmmakers for hiding it, they couldn't get away with it or it didn't make sense in the context of the piece.
Or low anything for that matter. Oedipus, Hamlet, Macbeth, the original Grimm's fairy tales, and, well, the Bible all have scenes of violence as bad as anything in Pulp Fiction, and in some of them worse.
I obviously voted for Lawrence, which has more than it's fair share of death and destruction (though the blood is fairly cartoonish). One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest(which I still need to see the entirety of, I read the book though) has a major character get lobotomized and has a fair bit of EST (I know it does have some value, but not in the way applied in that book) the former I'd hold to be worse than anything that Tarantino portrays, and at least Tarantino lets there be some redemption in the piece.
It mimics the forms of the —sploitation flicks that Tarantino grew up on, but it's high cinema with a low veneer.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2007, 07:00:45 PM by Heradel »
I
Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.